Nuclear debate on wrong track

‘Clean’ energy source doing ‘dirty’ work

Originally published in FFWD September 13, 2007 by Drew Anderson in Viewpoint

On the same day the Calgary Herald ran a front-page story on Energy Alberta Corp. applying for a licence to build Western Canada’s first nuclear reactor, it also ran a short story, tucked into the back of the front section, detailing lingering fallout issues in Finland stemming from the Chernobyl disaster more than 20 years ago.
Over the course of the next couple of days, there was debate around the positive and negative implications of going nuclear, but the debate was on the wrong track right from the beginning. It is premature to discuss the issues of clean power and environmental sensitivities in relation to the plant. Rather, it is the issue of where that energy is going, and for what purpose, that ought to be the initial focus of dialogue.
Energy Alberta is seeking a permit from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build two twin Candu ACR-1000 reactors on Lake Cardinal, just west of Peace River. The cost of the project is estimated to be $6.2 billion, though nuclear development is notorious for cost overruns. According to Energy Alberta president and co-chairman Wayne Henuset, 70 per cent of the energy (2,200 megawatts from the first reactor alone) produced by the facility will go to an unspecified corporate customer, most likely a tar sands operator.
Debate so far has focused on the costs and benefits of nuclear power, specifically as it relates to the environment. Some claim nuclear energy is the cleanest solution to meet our energy needs, while others say it is a lesser-of-two-evils solution and leaves a toxic legacy in its wake. There are valid arguments on both sides. While nuclear energy does not produce carbon emissions through its production of energy, it still generates harmful waste that lingers for millennia, and the reactor drinks enormous amounts of water. The true debate, however, is how far we want tar sand development to progress and at what cost.
Development is now leading debate in this province rather than the more rational direction of debate leading development. It is often difficult to see the long-term repercussions of the decisions that we make, but this is not one of those times. There are already immense problems in the northern communities that border the tar sands: insufficient infrastructure, lack of housing, health problems and environmental degradation on par with the worst the rest of the world has to offer. According to the government of Alberta, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
While the tar sands cover an area twice the size of New Brunswick, only around 10 per cent of the resource has been exploited to date. While in 2005 the tar sands produced 966,000 barrels of oil per day, the provincial government forecasts three million barrels per day by 2020 and five million by 2030.
What are we going to do with the majority of that supposedly clean power spewing out of the nuclear reactors? We are going to dig up more earth and inject steam deep into crevices to produce more oil to feed the North American petroleum diet.
Albertans are being asked to risk nuclear power — the potential costs, the toxic waste and the jitters that accompany a power plant that could kill a great number of us if not managed properly — all for the benefit of another tar sands operator reaping billions in profits. Regular Albertans will only get 30 per cent of the energy, but will have to bear all of the social costs that accompany it.
Once we decide whether we want to expand tar sands development to the point where pit mines and tailing ponds cover the full extent of Alberta’s deposits — 140,200 square kilometres underlying boreal forest — then finally, the debate can turn to whether we want nuclear energy to power it.